The Summer of 1787 takes us into the sweltering room in which the founding fathers struggled for four months to produce the Constitution: the flawed but enduring document that would define the nation—then and now.George Washington presided; James Madison kept the notes; Benjamin Franklin offered wisdom and humor at crucial times. The Summer of 1787 traces the struggles within the Philadelphia Convention as the delegates hammered out the charter for the world’s first constitutional democracy. Relying on the words of the delegates themselves to explore the Convention’s sharp conflicts and hard bargaining; David O. Stewart lays out the passions and contradictions of the; often; painful process of writing the Constitution. It was a desperate balancing act. Revolutionary principles required that the people have power; but could the people be trusted? Would a stronger central government leave room for the states? Would the small states accept a Congress in which seats were allotted according to population rather than to each sovereign state? And what of slavery? The supercharged debates over America’s original sin led to the most creative and most disappointing political deals of the Convention. The room was crowded with colorful and passionate characters; some known—Alexander Hamilton; Gouverneur Morris; Edmund Randolph—and others largely forgotten. At different points during that sultry summer; more than half of the delegates threatened to walk out; and some actually did; but Washington’s quiet leadership and the delegates’ inspired compromises held the Convention together. In a country continually arguing over the document’s original intent; it is fascinating to watch these powerful characters struggle toward consensus—often reluctantly—to write a flawed but living and breathing document that could evolve with the nation.
#1496297 in Books Simon n Schuster 2002-09-03Format: Deckle EdgeOriginal language:EnglishPDF # 1 1.20 x 6.67 x 9.58l; #File Name: 0743228324384 pages
Review
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful. A VERY GOOD BOOK COMPARING AND CONTRASTING TWO GREAT MEN AND TWO GREAT GENERALS.By James E. MckinneyFirst and foremost this is not an analysis of the many battles each man fought. Rather; it is a study of the relationship between the two men; and their different styles. Wellington was an aristocrat; Napoleon certainly was not. Napoleon was a head of state; Wellington was a servant of the British crown. The differences between their respective positions had an enormous effect on their activities.Wellington almost always faced opposition on the home front; Napoleon practically never until near the end. Napoleon commanded huge armies; more than 600;00 in his invasion of Russia. Until Europe finally coalesced against Napoleon; Wellington rarely commanded more than 40;000 troops. The Peninsular Campaign taught the Duke many things that Napoleon never fully learned; viz.; logistics and the command of small bodies of men. Napoleon never commanded a company or ever a regiment. When the two finally met at Waterloo; Wellington proved to be much the better tactician. Unlike Napoleon; Wellington was everywhere on the battle field and was lucky not to have lost his live - no less than five senior officers were killed while standing beside him.To the victor belonged the spoils; In Wellington's case this meant "inheriting" two of Napoleon's mistresses. The book's principal failure is that after Napoleon's death in 1821 further comparisons between the two men become relatively meaningless.1 of 1 people found the following review helpful. Well focused accountBy Peter O. PiersonAnrew Roberts focuses on his two men; Napoleon and Wellington; and what each knew and thought about the other; He traces their careers; campaigns and battles well but lightly; as he leads to Waterloo. And there; he keeps his focuis; on the two; and how Napoleon seems to have lost his grip; with incidents that might have won for him that he failed to exploit. Regarding the timely arrival of Marshal Blucher and his Prussians on the field of Waterloo; Roberts stresses that it had always been part of the plan. Roberts concludes with Napoleon musing bitterly on St. Helena as he dicates his thoughts and recollections; and Wellington's many assessments in conversations recalled by others; in his long life. Wellington outlived Napoleon for over thirty years; and had a significant career as a statesmen; including two years as Prime Minister.5 of 6 people found the following review helpful. Lots of dirt on two great commandersBy Y. SageevRoberts succeeds in writing a readable and engaging comparison of the perceptions each leader possessed toward the other. The history is not a portrait of each commander separately; but rather shows the relationship between the two men in terms of conduct and word.While the history gives more or less equal time to both commanders; what emerges; at least in my view; is a decidedly surprising and uncommonly jaundiced portrayal of Wellington. For example; Wellington pursued and seduced no less than two of Napoleon's mistresses. He filled his mansion with copious quantities of "Napoleona" -- statues; paintings; memorabilia. Indeed; for a man of Wellington's supposedly Victorian understatement; he talked of his victory over Napoleon incessantly. It is typically understood that Napoleon was an egomaniacal; self-obsessed dictator. What is less well known is that Wellington was much less the reserved; stoic gentleman his reputation would lead one to believe.I would not consider this history to be essential reading except for buffs of the Napoleonic wars; and it gets a one-point deduction for its somewhat sordid; "tabloid-ish" quality. Still; I won't doubt the veracity of its content nor is it dry; so pick this one up if the focus is your cup of tea.
